When the people crave the boot on their neck, your job is done

SHAME ON THIS.

Well out of Context photo.
One snapshot in time after the fact

Was she supposed to turn the wheel after she was shot? I don't see that happening a lot

She was supposed to leave the car in Park and follow the verbal orders twice given to her.

I don't see how putting it in reverse, backing up four feet , then as an agent is aware Renee is not going to cooperate with those orders comply easy, because he's reaching into her open window in an attempt to either unlock her drivers side door, or pull her keys; she places the transmission out of reverse and into drive, then accelerates; be damned anybody attempting to walk around her vehicle; and getting caught in the path of her escape, evade, and elude goal avoiding
the attempted detainment. She's in the wrong, period. If she left it parked, she'd still be alive to complain about the experience.

You might want to watch this angle from Forbes Breaking News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq98aqF794

My eyesight isn't perfect, but that looks to me like a bunch of masked officers approaching the car for no discernable reason and trying to open the doors. The car never turns towards an officer, who was easily able to leave the path of the car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQeLRDvZpk
...please watch closely from 2:04-2:10

She was being detained by the bunch of masked officers approaching her car.
They verbally ordered Rene "Get out of the Car. Get out of the F*#king car"
as you can clearly hear. The discernable reason is theirs, the Federal Law Enforcement Agents, for whatever actions she did or was doing, leading up to this interaction.
Did she comply with these detainment orders?

Does this matter that she ignores their legal and lawful orders ? It will to her children.

You can hear the officer give her orders to step out of her parked car, in the following video.
Every other clip you'll see by CNN or just about any other outlet will talk over these orders, or edit the audio out. BBC left it in, yet edited out the cursing use of the :F" word Just watch the first 8 seconds of the following clip to hear the orders being given to her, which she could have complied.
It's tragic, that she chose not to leave her car parked, and comply with the orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3caI3di8c

4th amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There was clearly no warrant or other document, and I can't spot anything that would warrant probable cause. The officers were not in anything resembling danger until they tried to unlawfully enter her car yet the gun was unholstered whilst the car was in reverse. Renee clearly made the wrong decision by driving away, but that is no worse than reckless endangerment and does not justify deadly force

Wow, really? Just full stop.
She was ordered "Get out of the car." There is little doubt she heard that.

Your 'The officers were not in anything resembling Danger' fantasy is just not reality.
One day you may come to the correct conclusion there. Maybe not. Wake up.
She could have stayed parked. She did not. Instead she tried to drive through the agent.
She paid a heavy price.
Your scenario malarkey falls on deaf ears.
The scenarios offered are at best grasping at straws, at worst, they remain incorrect.
This is a tragic and sad incident with lasting consequences. Don't make it something it isn't.

Oops, every state has Implied Consent Laws regarding motor vehicles. You might want to check them out, they deal with more than DUI. You have a permit for a vehicle, not a right. Totally different legal standard, codified in to law. Using a vehicle as a weapon qualifies the use of deadly force. He can unholster his gun any time his training and experience indicate it is necessary for his protection. Oh if only she would have driven gently like you do through a parade when you aren't trying to kill people.

The car was stationary when the gun was unholstered, so was not being used as a deadly weapon. That part is not legal, but it indicates the officer may have been, for lack of a better word, trigger happy. If the intent had been to hit the officer with the car, the wheels would not have already been turned to the right, but forwards or to the left, and hitting the gas would have sent the car straight into the officer. Instead, it veered off to the right. She was not driving before the officers showed up. They had no reason to come up to her car.

In your rush to judgment you've missed eye witness comments. You are looking at a 30 second window with no context. You don't know that she and her lesbian wife were following these ICE officers and deliberately trying to disrupt their lawful work. You don't know there were other other self righteous fools that she was said to be leading in a childish attempt to interfere with law enforcement. You don't know about the eyewitness accounts explaining that she had moved her car into the position it was to interfere as much as she could. You don't know that her lesbian wife had gotten out of the car to video her heroics, saving innocent illegal aliens from due process in our justice system. You don't know that there had been other instances in the neighborhood similar to this and that they had a system of whistles they used to notify each other that ICE was operating in the area. You don't know that this neighborhood had a history of disrupting law enforcement of all kinds.
But then you've already moved on to your next hate America outrage, you don't have time to care about this anymore, you've got more hatred for law and order to express.

Thanks for making up a bunch of stuff I just haven't said (I also don't see how her being lesbian has anything to do with this). Those other factors don't mean by a long shot that she wanted to kill anyone, which is the only situation in which the use of lethal force is justified. Finally, looking just at the video, she was driving completely normally, letting people pass and was about to go as well when the officers pulled up and got out of their cars

No, she was part of a group of protesters deliberately interfering with law enforcement. Other people with her said she was leading the group. Eyewitnesses said she was leading the group trying to interfere. There's more than meets the eye.

So should the police just shoot protesters who get in their way? Lethal force is only justified when the officer can reasonably believe their life is in danger, which looking at that video is clearly not true

BobbyBob, can't respond in order to your last question below, hopefully this makes sense. Police are not just shooting protesters here, there is no data to support that. It's important to understand that police also have the authority to defend citizens and property with lethal force. In the US, this authority is seldom exercised.
For comparison, look at what is getting out of Iran right now. The regime has shut down internet and cell and conventional phone service, so information is limited and posting can get someone killed. I can't get an X link to this, but you are smart enough to figure it out. Listen to this Iranian man and you'll see what a real police state does. Look at what the new regime in Syria is doing to Druze, Alawhytes, and others. Like I said, we have laws. If the law is not good, we have a peaceful process to change it. I mentioned in another comment, life is so fragile. My sister was in a jeep accident, Everyone walked away but her. The way she landed in the impact, her liver was ruptured and she bled to death internally. If the accident had happened on the hospital lawn, she would have died. No broken bones, no bruises. She was 21. Another situation I assisted with, a 12 year old kid got hit in the head with a rock thrown by a friend just screwing around. Dead. Another, elderly woman, slipped on a step, hit her head. Dead. Getting tapped by a car can kill, there is no scale of magnitude when anyone is threatened by a person using a vehicle.
Please take the time to track down this Iranian video, I guarantee it is important and you will not be wasting your time. Be well.

I'm afraid the courts demand such a threshold to determine whether or not the officer can reasonably fear for his life. I have seen the bodycam footage, if the officer feared for his life, he should not have been out in the field. Otherwise, he had no reason to shoot. Police states don't appear overnight, as anyone who's lived in one can tell you. They begin when the government justifies police brutality with "she deserved it" and the population accepts it. To be passive is to submit to authority, and if that authority does anything to threaten the people, you and everyone else has a duty to hold them accountable or you will end up in a police state, whether you voted for it or not

The car barely touches the officer, and by the earlier video, they had no reason to suspect the driver of any wrongdoing

If by "Barely touches", you mean "moves him off his feet and back 1.5 Meters".
Your hubris proceeds you.
Brilliant !

Do you know how much 1.5m is? The officer shooting is on his feet the entire time. Being knocked back 5ft by a car would mean being knocked clean off your feet. The officer barely moves 1.5ft let alone 1.5m. Give me a break

Obviously, you did not view the link offered. Did you?
That is the only break I'd grant, is if you viewed it.
Then, we'd be on the same page.
Brilliant comments otherwise.

Kindly,
Here it is again for you and anyone else that cares to discuss it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQeLRDvZpk

As advised earlier ...please watch closely from 2:04-2:10. This is him hit by her car and moved.
Otherwise, I can't help you come to an understanding that this is original and unaltered video

You are right there, I was looking at the video at 1:50. However, the circumstances do still not justify the use of deadly force. An officer may use deadly force if they can reasonably believe they are at risk of serious injury. The standard set out for a vehicle qualifying as a deadly weapon requires, among other things, that the car is moving over 5mph and the officer is unable to move out of the way. Neither of those standards were met in this case. I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong

If you say so, it must be so

I guess kind of like how the bullet barely entered her skull?

Yeah 1.5 m is .5 m less than 2m and .5 m more than 1m. No mystery there.

If that counts as being hit by a car, trump would have been shot between the eyes...

Uh, you're the one who said barely touches the officer. Let me put it a different way, that's like being a little pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not, there is no barely.
The officer is shown clearly off the ground, one eyewitness said his torso was at about the height of the bumper and he was reaching above the hood to fire. Look how low the bullet through the windshield entered. Never mind, you established your paradigm, and no amount of information will change it.

Show me a single frame where the officer is off the ground. He is on his feet the entire time except for what looked clearly like slipping on ice. Very frankly, if she had been trying to run him over, he would have been run over after having shot her. People don't turn steering wheels when they've been shot, but their bodies can still slump and put pressure on the gas

How can I show you? He got shunted off to the side because he didn't let himself get pulled under the car. It's called situational awareness, training and adjusting to the situation. Reports say he was dragged by an illegal before, so it wasn't his first rodeo to keep from being killed by a communist sympathizing driver. Don't turn steering wheels after being shot? You need to work on that line, the punchline is really weak.

First off, I do truly appreciate those comments, they put this situation into perspective. Driving a car towards someone is considered justification of lethal force when the car is travelling over 5mph and the officer cannot escape the path of the vehicle. The real world is a cruel place, and human life is beautiful and fragile. That is all the more reason to create laws to prevent things like murder and rape and theft, and crucially, to hold those who are meant to protect us accountable when they kill us. My view of this situation is that Renee made a bad decision but she did not deserve force, let alone lethal force. As for the officer, it is a failure on the part of ICE that they did not provide sufficient firearms training to protect his life and the lives of others

Checked with a number of LEOs who are friends, and they wanted you to understand, you can't estimate 3, 4, 5 or 6 mph. There is no criteria that says the decision to use lethal force is determined by whether an officer can step out of the path. It is the officer's discretion based on a case by case basis.
One deputy I know got a call for a woman driving erratically. When he located her, he witnessed 3 near head on collisions. When he tried to pull her over in a safe place she evaded him and eventually pulled into a business parking lot. He radioed in, she rolled down her window and clearly collected her license and registration. When he approached the car, she accelerated toward him back toward the crowded highway trying to hit him. In fractions of a second (he told me his thought process through the whole attack) he had to decide if the public was going to be endangered by her getting back on the highway, if he should let her go and risk restraining her with backup at an unknown location, he saw 2 school busses on the highway, calculated which way she would likely turn on the two lane highway, determining if she would stop before hitting him, scanning for anyone behind her that could be harmed by discharging his weapon, what her vehicle trajectory was and how fast she was closing distance between them, his only protection. Security camera footage from the business showed in less than half a second, she started accelerating toward him, he drew his weapon and shot to kill. He had no other choice. She was so loaded on meth, the medical examiner said she was near death from overdose.
These situations are never cookie cutter. He is still torn by having to kill her, given any other options he would not have shot, it is all crystal ball conjecture what could have happened if she had gotten to the highway. What would you do? Make that decision in half a second. Understand most law enforcement never discharge their weapons in a career. Most are in the profession to serve and protect. They never get credit for saving life, and most don't care if they do, that's just their job. They see the worst of humanity.

Funnily enough, I don't tell jokes when people die, so I'm sorry if you were braindead enough to think that was a punchline. You said the officer is off the ground. Show me.

I'm not your researcher, The truth is out there and you don't have to dig too deep to find it. Everyone is a knee jerk specialist, instant outrage and in situations like this reacting way before any investigation is done. First video is all that counts even if it is distorted to serve an agenda. How about if I said this, you show me proof. You show me the frames that prove he wasn't moved by her vehicle. You show me that real life is exactly like a television show. Cops don't shoot to wound, or deter like unbraindead people like you think. Their training is, if you have to use your weapon, shoot to kill, it's that serious. This woman had very bad intentions. Like far too many on the left she was stirred up to rage and self justified anything she chose to do.
How about this, show me that the illegal aliens ICE is arresting aren't rapists. Show me that they aren't murderers or into gang violence. You show me that they are perfect law abiding people. Then show me how they didn't violate our laws by circumventing our immigration process. I can show you one frame of any video and twist it to create any lie you want to hear. Don't like what happened to this violent and angry woman? Too bad, welcome to the real world.

I did look at another angle, and you are right, he was hit by the vehicle. If you look at my other comments, that still does not justify the lethal force used. Given that we live in a world of innocent until proven guilty, I'm not sure why you're so convinced I have to prove to you that something didn't happen. As for everything else, you seem to have just gone off on a tangent about things I haven't said.

Excuse me. Ms. Good learned about the real world the hard way. Why she ever thought it could not come down to this is a shame. She made decisions with the trajectory clearly being that it could cost her life, whether she recognized that or not. Don't like the law, change the law, that's what we've done in the US for centuries. You don't change the law by attacking a person just doing their job.
I know that emotions are high, but you have to stay clear eyed, or nothing can be made better. Please realize that driving a car toward someone is considered lethal force. The human body is magnificent, but so incredibly fragile, it takes so little for someone to be killed. I volunteered at a small fire department when I was younger, and had to deal with some body recoveries. More than once I looked at someone and asked, what happened? No bruises, no cuts, no broken bones and yet this person is dead from the slightest thing. Life is fragile and irreplaceable. To treat it as anything less is the worst that can happen. Be well, I'm not your enemy.

I do understand, these are never clear cut, and my 5mph reference comes from previous court rulings (not supreme court though). However, the immediate danger to the officer is clearly limited by the fact that there was virtually no room to accelerate to a lethal speed. The danger to others is also clearly very low, as the street behind the ICE truck is empty and Renee is lucid and sober in the officer' own bodycam footage. Lethal force is not allowed on fleeing suspects, and all the circumstances leading up to the use of force must be considered, not merely the moment of threat. Your officer friend had no other choice. I think it's clear that this officer did

BobbyBob, there is peril for both of us trying to understand what happened in a stream of consciousness news feed. As more is revealed this gets sicker and sicker. The street was not empty behind them, ICE was in an active operation, not stuck in a snowbank. Evidence indicates Good was leading anti-ICE forces in a tactic they have used in other cities as well as Minneapolis where they box in ICE operators with vehicles to set them up for an ambush. This has been used multiple times against ICE over the last year and is becoming a more common tactic as more people like Good are trained. Why has the democrat party put out a doctored video where Good is essentially saying, (sorry not an exact quote), to the ICE officer at her door, "I don't have anything against you, have a great day officer!" Gunshots "F**king Bitch!" They cut out over 30 seconds where she escalated things. The gunfire and response from the officer were altered- he said it after he had been hit by the car, not while he was shooting. Do we have the whole picture yet? As more and more video from other angle come in, clearly, no, we don't fully understand what happened. Keep in mind all the whistles you hear in a number of the videos is part of the system that has been developed by anti-ICE activists to notify like minded radicals to activate the ambush.
Can I assume that if an illegal alien is wanted for rape, murder, or child molestation that you don't have a problem with ICE participating in the apprehension of that person? Not trying to be snarky, if you do agree that criminals regardless of citizenship, need to be arrested, do you have a problem with someone like Good deliberately interfering with that? Have a good weekend my friend.

And Trump being shot by a would be murderer has what to do with this woman getting herself shot in the head by thinking her feelings supersede law enforcement in what way? So you hate Trump. Get over it. It's how our government has been designed. We don't have to agree with your disdain for laws. You don't like it, elect a better bunch of representatives. If you can't get your clowns elected, try harder next time, don't feel like you suddenly have a right to blow everything up and not get killed in the process.

I was simply illustrating my point but ok. When you say get over it, it normally applies to trivial things. If an innocent woman is shot by law enforcement, anyone against government overreach should be angry and demand an explanation better than "she seemed angry and tried to drive in my general direction"

Hit that "flag" at the end of your "I'm afraid the courts demand " comment. I agree with much of your comment, but want to encourage you to look at how the creation of a police state, or even the image of it, is a tactic used in communist revolutions all around the world. Cloward and Pivens laid out a strategy to destroy the United States by overwhelming our welfare system, extreme deficit spending and bankrupting the government. That's why we have $38 trillion debt (or whatever it is now) and people are fighting every effort to reduce fraud and corruption. Makes no sense to fight proven fraud.
Creating the conditions for a police state destroys the judicial and legal systems of the nation. Without law and order, anarchy rules, and communists prevail. In Russia the Red Army was outnumbered by the White and the Green Armies. They infiltrated both armies who were fighting for a free Russia, created disorder and a police state, then let them destroy themselves. The people of Russia were ready to resist the communists, but they were told by the Green Army, "There's a plan, wait for the plan." with no plan coming until it was too late.
It's a repeating pattern. You are smart, you are skeptical, both excellent qualities to have. I'm no different than you, we both have to throw off manipulation from all sides. Sometimes we're faced with the sliding scale of who is more right in each situation where neither side is acceptable, that's not a choice. We can however, carefully analyze these things and speak the truth no matter what the polarized agendas try to put out to manipulate things for their own gain.

imgflip.com/i/aev68m WEF Young Global Leaders become Elder Statesmen

DOGE:

Department
Of
Government
Effiiciency

Right, let's go with that 'original' acronym; as disinformation when we can look up the word, it's meaning, and how it is used in context in other Latin based languages.

Do Europeans of the EU, while advised by a Technocrat like Mario Draghi and his report, when they hear the word DOGE, think of Musk differently than Americans with that title ? That word means something to Italians and them, that it does not to neither Libweirdos nor MAGA in the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(title)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Draghi

So, 18 step plan into "X" and DOGE both have had meaning for awhile, and now is randomly chosen to represent several overall technology schemes.
Now things are getting interesting.

imgflip.com/i/ae4vxw Cloward and Pivens, did they know Stuart Chase, M King Hubbert,
or Joshua N. Haldeman and the Technate ?

Not sure, marxist college profs probably knew all the movers and shakers of technocracy.

Is the Grandson of Joshua N. Haldeman and his Cohorts the Modern Current Version ?

That's what happens when you turn away from the ICE officer you tried to hit with your car and speed off to die while you collide with parked cars on the side of the road.

I guess it's also what happens when you give political hot takes in direct line of fire from a nearvy rooftop...